The European Physical Journal D

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 73–80 | Cite as

Monte Carlo sampling of energy-constrained quantum superpositions in high-dimensional Hilbert spaces

  • F. Hantschel
  • B. V. FineEmail author
Topical issue: Hybrid Quantum Systems – New Perspectives on Quantum State Control Regular Article


Recent studies into the properties of quantum statistical ensembles in high-dimensional Hilbert spaces have encountered difficulties associated with the Monte Carlo sampling of quantum superpositions constrained by the energy expectation value. A straightforward Monte Carlo routine would enclose the energy constrained manifold within a larger manifold, which is easy to sample, for example, a hypercube. The efficiency of such a sampling routine decreases exponentially with the increase of the dimension of the Hilbert space, because the volume of the enclosing manifold becomes exponentially larger than the volume of the manifold of interest. The present paper explores the ways to optimise the above routine by varying the shapes of the manifolds enclosing the energy-constrained manifold. The resulting improvement in the sampling efficiency is about a factor of five for a 14-dimensional Hilbert space. The advantage of the above algorithm is that it does not compromise on the rigorous statistical nature of the sampling outcome and hence can be used to test other more sophisticated Monte Carlo routines. The present attempts to optimise the enclosing manifolds also bring insights into the geometrical properties of the energy-constrained manifold itself.


Manifold Hilbert Space Acceptance Rate Monte Carlo Sampling Energy Expectation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    B.V. Fine, Phys. Rev. E 80, 051130 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    B.V. Fine, F. Hantschel, An alternative to the conventional micro-canonical ensemble, arXiv:1010.4673v1 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D.C. Brody, L.P. Hughston, J. Math. Phys. 39, 6505 (1998)ADSCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    W.K. Wooters, Found. Phys. 11, 1365 (1990)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    C.M. Bender, D.C. Brody, D.W. Hook, J. Phys. A 38, L607 (2005)ADSzbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Fresch, G.J. Moro, J. Phys. Chem. A 113, 14502 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Fresch , G.J. Moro , J. Chem. Phys. 133, (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Fresch , G.J. Moro , J. Chem. Phys. 133, (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Mueller, D. Gross, J. Eisert, arXiv:1003.4982v2 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M.E. Dyer, A.M. Frieze, SIAM J. Comput. 17, 967 (1988)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Lawrence, Math. Comput. 57, 259 (1991)ADSzbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. Burger, P. Gritzmann, Discrete Comput. Geom. 24, 219 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Simonovits, Math. Program. Ser. B 97, 337 (2003)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EDP Sciences, SIF, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations